Özet:

This studyexplains how the construction of ethnic boundaries of Lazes is shaped in relation to both local and central political-economic structures. In this study, ethnicity is defined according to constructivist theories that is a groupnessbuilt relationally and established by its interaction to its environment and the Other. As such ethnicity is not static but fluid and open to change. It explains political, economic and social dynamics of this transformation by dealing with the properties that are, according to Lazes, responsible from drawing the ethnic boundaries. According to Lazes, their language is still the most widely accepted criterion of the construction of ethnic boundaries. In particular where their boundaries with other Black Sea people are blurred, they differentiate themselves with it. Lazish (Lazuri), whose symbolic value is high in the construction of ethnic boundaries, is left behind if it complicates the integration with the national sphere, market and opportunities at the education system. Lazish which lacks linguistic capital has gradually been limited to rural, private, emotionally intensive and informal spheres. As the minimum requirement of upward social mobility and not facing political oppression, Lazes speak Turkish and unspeak Lazish; nevertheless these tendencies are still far from completely undermining the fact that Lazes consider themselves as an ethnic group. Lazness has been reproduced by ascribing to certain properties which are less risky in terms of political and economic aspects within the existing system. Lazness tends to construct boundaries with a particular symbolic usage of language and the narratives of culture, behaviors, humor and life style. They draw boundaries by seeing Lazness different for certain reasons from people of Rize, Trabzon and Hemshin. The fact that they consider Lazness equally different from Black Sea Turks indicates that a clear difference exists between ethnic and national belongings among Lazes. As such for Lazes different degrees and forms of Turkishness exist, the ethnic and the national Turkishness.While Lazness ethnically separates itself from Turkishness, most Lazes nationally see themselves as part of Turkishness. When the national resources cannot be picked out of Lazness, it is articulated into Turkishness. The findings of this study demonstrate that this articulation is not the single position among Lazes, and there have been differentiated imaginations and choices. The hierarchy between the national and the ethnic, the exclusion of the ethnic difference from the national, the hegemonic power of national narratives and policies, all lead to a certain type of ethnic boundary construction that allows the articulation of Lazness into the Turkishness whenever it is desired. Although categorically the boundaries of the ethnic is salient -but not necessarily so in terms of behavior- they are also depoliticized so as to be articulated into the national category

Anahtar Kelimeler: